Why do Atheists exist?

[Iti oj]

Or if God does exist why did he create atheist?

Because he uses atheist as a test for the faithfull? Athesit are doing gods work then?

 

[Revoltingest]

Or if God does exist why did he create atheist?

A speculation:
We are, of course, his chosen people.
He created this world as a test for humans.
He so carefully & craftily provided no evidence for his existence.
To be an atheist is to pass the test.
What is our reward?
We're endowed with smug self-satisfaction.

 

[Caladan]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

That's one way of looking at it. another way can be that just like you, many other people see the splendor and magnificence, they just don't say that there is an intelligence behind it. I'm not sure why you would say that in order not to believe that there is intelligence behind the universe, a person must be blind to the wonders of nature.

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

DERP!

I don't ever remember anything said about the subject of God in any biology or physics class I've taken.

 

[Alex_G]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

Atheism exists in just the same way as a-astrology exists, or a-Greek mythology or a-unicorns. I'm 'a-' a hell of a lot of things.
You can be fully appreciative of the wonders of life and the universe without the belief in a God, especially a personal one or any specific one advocated by any of the religions that exist. Its arguably even more interesting and amazing in a godless framework.

I would challenge you that any concept of God you indeed have is going to be quite conceptually thin, vague and ill defined. Its quite questionable as to what such an idea even contributes to the intellectual life. Often i think citing God's hand in things just represents a conditioned response, a heuristic of availability solidified by emotional weight, such that its application to everything has become perceived as vital to ones mental integrity. Done almost automatically in a psycho-protective way, a quick fix comfort to anything posing a threat of ambiguity and unknown.

I find looking at the universe square on, no stings attached to be very liberating and uplifting. To breathe freely in that authentic vulnerability of standing in the shadow of mystery honestly acknowledging it. Vague god concepts dont excite me at all.

Alex

 

[Valjean]

Once people said that earthquakes were clear evidence of divinity. Once it was clear that the sun's transit across the sky each day was orchestrated by God.
Now we know the mechanisms behind these phenomena and no longer believe they're magically created by God.

You mention physics and biology, Religion of Four. Both study the Natural, mechanical processes behind the universe and life. Both are obviating the need for a magical/divine author. Your examples undermine your case!
Just because the world is awesome and breathtaking doesn't mean it was created by magic by some equally inexplicable personage. I'm assuming you've never really studied the explanations scientists have discovered.

"Goddidit," by the way, is not an explanation. It does not address the mechanism behind the creation. It's merely an assertion of agency.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

I've taken both. So, tell me: where in my biology or physics class was evidence presented suggesting "intelligence behind it's [sic] design""

 

[Splarnst]

and for the record, i got a price when i went out the 9:th grade for being best at things like biology and physics.

$9.99?

 

[Krok]

However FTP, an intellectually honest atheist will then admit that such a proof logically cannot exist nor can a proof that no god exists, therefore they would be agnostic or perhaps apatheistic.

I'm an atheist. Some people call me a radical atheist.

I recognize that no proof can exist for or against the existence of fairies, a god, gods, the FSM or Russell's Tea Pot, amongst lots of others. logically these proofs can't exist.

That's why I go on evidence. I can't proof that no fairies exist at the end of my garden, but I can look at probabilities for or against their existence.

It's always funny to me to examine arguments on belief: empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of the Golden Gate Bridge are ample, although I've never seen them myself. Yet, this evidence exist.

On the other hand, things like fairies, Thor, etc.; things people just believe in and are told that it's good to just believe in them for no reason, never tend to exist.

There's no empirical, verifiable evidence that a god or gods or things like that exist.

Therefore I don't believe your claims. I'm a proud atheist.

Of course the ball is in your court: provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of your god. If you could do that, I would change my mind.

You won't ever admit to being able to contemplate the opposite, would you? You just believe. You'll never change your mind. Whether you believe in your god or any other god or gods. You'll never change your mind, regardless of reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

Either your god is not magnificent or you just gave us a rather glaring example of special pleading. Which is it?

 

[orcel]

How can there be so many humans that are so blind to the splender and maginifecence and epicness and wonder of this universe and say there is no inteligence behind it's design?

It's like they never took Biology or a Physics class!

Personally, I don't believe in Atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I don't believe in Atheists.

That's all right - the important thing is that we believe in you.

 

[idea]

Or if God does exist why did he create atheist?

He did not create atheists ... at least the word "create" needs to be appropriately defined...

from another post...

If I say I create a piece of art - this does not mean that I made something from nothing. It would be better to say I transformed paint/paper/canvas/clay into art.

The word "create" in the Bible is not "something from nothing" but rather describes transformation. we are "created" by God to the extent that we allow ourselves to be transformed by Him.

Hebrew Root Word Studies

[SIZE=+1]Child Root (Branches of the Tree)[/SIZE]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia] Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]

[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]

See also the Lexicon:
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
[/FONT]

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Here is another example:
God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph


the word "create" has been redefined to mean something it did not originally mean.


(Old Testament | Isaiah 64:8)
8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.


God molds and transforms what is eternally there - this is what is meant when we say He is the great creator. There are no scriptures which say God was alone in the beginning, there was never a time when nothing existed except God.

Everything has always existed - including us. This is why we have an independent will - because part of us is independent from God. God is cleaning up a mess He did not create.

(This is Mormon doctrine btw - but a few others believe it too)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
God found us, took pity on us, and provided a way through which we could advance and learn to become like Him if we choose.
He adopted us:

(New Testament | Romans 8:15)
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

adoption is the process where someone takes care of another that they did not create...

He does not force anyone to do anything - this would take away our free will - and with it our ability to love/live/exist. God knows how everything will turn out - can see who we are, even when we cannot clearly see our self. Even if He knows it all, it would be unjust to not give someone a chance... so we are all give a chance, we are all pushed as far as we are able to go... we are all given the opportunity to show who we really are - to actually live/experience/physically go out and do things - and not just left to the thought experiments of what we might have been, what we might have done... anything else would be untested, unproven...
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]
[/FONT]

 

[idea]

I've taken both. So, tell me: where in my biology or physics class was evidence presented suggesting "intelligence behind it's [sic] design""

We could start with the fine tuning of the universe...

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
   if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
   if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
   if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
   if smaller: same as above
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
   if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
   if smaller: same as above
8. expansion rate of the universe
   if larger: no galaxies would form
   if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9. entropy level of the universe
   if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
   if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10. mass density of the universe
    if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
    if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11. velocity of light
    if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12. age of the universe
    if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
    if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13. initial uniformity of radiation
    if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
    if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. average distance between galaxies
    if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15. density of galaxy cluster
    if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
    if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16. average distance between stars
    if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
    if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
    if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18. decay rate of protons
    if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
    if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20. ground state energy level for 4He
    if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
    if smaller: same as above
21. decay rate of 8Be
    if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
    if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
    if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
    if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
    if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
    if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24. polarity of the water molecule
    if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
    if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25. supernovae eruptions
    if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
    if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26. white dwarf binaries
    if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
    if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
    if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
    if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
    if smaller: no galaxies would form
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
    if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
    if smaller: same result
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
    if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
    if larger: same result
30. mass of the neutrino
    if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
    if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31. big bang ripples
    if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
    if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
    if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
    if larger: same result
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
    if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
34. cosmological constant
    if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

here are some good quotes from famous scientists about it:
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

 

[Photonic]

The major religions on the Earth contradict each other left and right. You can’t all be correct. And what if all of you are wrong? It’s a possibility, you know. You must care about the truth, right? Well, the way to winnow through all the differing contentions is to be skeptical. I’m not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about. But in my line of work, they’re called hypotheses, not inspiration and not revelation.
Chapter 10 (p. 162) Carl Sagan

I think Carl Sagan is good enough to stop this.

 

[Photonic]

We could start with the fine tuning of the universe...

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


here are some good quotes from famous scientists about it:
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

The fine tuning argument has been refuted long ago. In fact Douglas Adams puts it quite well.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

 

[idea]

The fine tuning argument has been refuted long ago. In fact Douglas Adams puts it quite well.

This would be true IF all other fine tuning variables produced unique universes - but they don't. All other values produce the same thing - either dust, or one giant black whole. We exist within a singularity. It is not like things would just be a little different - a little larger planets, or a little faster orbit/rotation.... everything else produces a bunch of nothing (not another slightly different world)

 

[Photonic]

This would be true IF all other fine tuning variables produced unique universes - but they don't. All other values produce the same thing - either dust, or one giant black whole. We exist within a singularity. It is not like things would just be a little different - a little larger planets, or a little faster orbit/rotation.... everything else produces a bunch of nothing (not another slightly different world)

You have no evidence whatsoever to make any claim of knowledge of an outside viewer.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

We could start with the fine tuning of the universe...

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


here are some good quotes from famous scientists about it:
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

It's a truly amazing fallacy, I'll give it that much. Assuming the universe was made to support human life just proves the arrogance of man.

 

[idea]

You have no evidence whatsoever to make any claim of knowledge of an outside viewer.

Who said God is "outside"? I guess you could say that He is a viewer though - as you are, and I am.

Intelligence exists, living conscience creative beings exist. If you dig a computer up out of the ground - do you think it just "naturally" formed there? or was there thought behind it? Thought exists - the ability to intelligently design things exists... or do you deny the existence of intelligence?

 

[Photonic]

Who said God is "outside"? I guess you could say that He is a viewer though - as you are, and I am.

Intelligence exists, living conscience creative beings exist. If you dig a computer up out of the ground - do you think it just "naturally" formed there? or was there thought behind it? Thought exists - the ability to intelligently design things exists... or do you deny the existence of intelligence?

I deny the paradox of infinite intelligence.

Not intelligence itself.